One of the most talked-about highlights of yesterday’s Royal Wedding was the lively and passionate sermon preached by the Presiding Bishop of the US Episcopal Church, Michael Curry. I doubt it was any accident that this man, who has a strong record in supporting same sex marriage, was chosen to deliver this address.

I don’t believe in God and didn’t find anything in his words to change my mind on that score. That didn’t stop me being utterly inspired by the message he brought to the heart of the British establishment.

His theme was “the power of love” and it asked us to imagine politics and government and business and commerce where love was the way. No child, he said, would ever go hungry again and poverty would be history. By the time he started talking about the benefits of human migration around the world, I was sold. This guy stood there in front of the British Royal Family and talked about revolutionary movements. It was utterly compelling. A lot of fire and no brimstone.

As it’s Sunday morning, and the BBC has kindly put the whole thing on You Tube, I thought it was worth putting up here. This man embraced the opportunity to address 1.9 billion people and made the most of it. Even if you have been avoiding all other parts of the Wedding, watch this. I’m sure you will feel at least a little bit inspired.

expats, I do not think the maths on that adds up and even if you did somehow give everyone a substantial sum a few year down the line you will have those who have done well on the money and those who have burnt their innards out on hard drugs, end up as gibbering wrecks. We live in a land of endless opportunity for those with talent and/or a good idea with plenty of jobs for those whose brains or bodies aren’t up anything innovative or clever… rather than trying to steal other people’s money much better to join the game and see how far you can get.

There are two strands to almost all religions, The one is as per this article, fill world with love etc and there is nothing wrong with that but it is largely a sap to most of populace who have no access to the second strand, merely a reflection of the compassion of those who are part of that second strand of religion, which if you go far enough back does actually have royal connections. It is the antithesis of democracy and equality.

I commented yesterday about wonderful Michael Curry. I believe he is the very exponent of liberalism, one our Tim Farron could learn from, as he seems less comfortable than the Bishop, with the nature of gay love, Bishop Curry sees love as love, and has been an advocate for rights, based on equating love with love and advancing equal understanding and validity of love, more than mere tolerance.

The day itself was one of progress. The typical leftist republican negative rants endemic in that stance, found here less but here too, are drowned out by the positive energy of posts from some of us, excellent pieces from Caron, here, Floella Benjamin particularly, and me here, with a contribution on this very liberal site http://www.ustinovforum.com

Two very fortunate men obviously in becoming the richest on the planet but also showing a great amount of “love” to their fellow humans in an intelligent way.

I think it easy for us to concentrate on the country’s and world’s problems and if something can be made better it should be but it is amazing how much better this country has got compared to the early 1800s – less than 200 years ago. Immense fantastic technology achievement and much political achievement – not least due to Liberals but also Socialists and Tories. We are all showing “love” IMHO when we wrestle with the country’s and the world’s problems through the political process – when we pay our taxes to help our fellow humans (as well as hopefully ourselves!) – including in developing countries. And indeed the world throughout the globe is becoming an immensely better place – see the books highlighted on the front of Gate’s’ website.

I appreciate some of @William Fowler’s comments but I would venture that Christ’s teachings and indeed the teachings of other religions are quite radical and anti-establishment.

I’m not sure that the stuffed shirts in the chapel really got it; but, yes, Bishop Curry’s performance was a tour de force. I’m not sure where Nick Collins is coming from; but the Hilary for me came not from the Rev Curry but from the expression of bewilderment on the faces of certain members of the Royal Family. The whole event almost converted me to Monarchism.

Suzanne Moore, reflecting on the wedding and sermon in today’s Guardian, captures many of the contradictions and inequalities of modern Britain. If Liberal Democrats are ever to be seen as a radical party again they must focus on the fact that unfairness is about much more than gender issues. It is about poverty, inequality, the imbalance of power between employer/ employees, the punitively harsh welfare system and erosion of the welfare state and the health service (in part by Lib Dem ministers).

Ms Moore captures some of it : “As the homeless were cleared off the streets of Windsor to make way for the well-wishers – who then listened to a sermon about making poverty history – one has to ask for whom interracial marriage is a big deal. It is the establishment and the liberal middle classes who continually lecture the working classes on racism and yet it is at the bottom of society, not the top, that interracial relationships are so common as to not be remarked upon. It is the establishment that locks out black people. David Lammy called it “social apartheid” when discussing the astonishing fact that 13 Oxford colleges did not make a single offer to black A-level applicants over a six-year period”.

She adds, “Meghan Markle brings glamour to the royals, and they benefit enormously, but Broken Britain can’t be patched together by pageantry and a kiss”.

If Lib Dems are to throw off the negative curse of the Coalition legacy (e.g. 25% to 2% in Huddersfield in seven years) they need to take a forensic look at the state of broken Britain and to come up with a political agenda to deal with it. Sugary honeyed words are not enough. The question is are they capable or even interested in doing it ?

Yet those (in key positions on the Federal Board) who are touting a Core Vote strategy say we should focus our messaging, policies and campaigning on areas where ‘the’ Core Vote (as they define it) is strongest i.e. urban, educated, professional/middle class voters plus, since 2016, where coinciding concentrations of Remain voters exist.

Those writing about a ‘Pivoting strategy’ say we should take advantage of the destruction of our MP’s to switch effort away from areas where in the past we have merely won with ‘the wrong sort of voters in the wrong places’. The relative lack of sitting MP’s they argue means there are few ‘vested interests’ to fight against such a ‘pivot’ in our efforts and messaging.

Now I may just be blinkered because I grew up on a Council Estate in Sheffield but I simply don’t agree with this approach. Neither would the last Liberal Governments of 1906 onwards – the non Asquithian parts at any rate.

@ John Marriott: For me the hilarity came from the ott delivery and the preacher’s lengthy discourse on the wonders of fire whilst waving his vestment sleeves seemingly dangerously close to the candles flanking the lectern.

Listening to the discussion on the “Today” programme the following day, however, I learned, to my surprise, that most media commentators found it “inspirational”.

One exception, apparently, was Quentin Letts in the “Daily Mail”. To find myself in agreement with that individual is more than a tad embarrassing; it has never happened before and will probably never happen again.

@ Paul Holmes Good to know you agree about the priorities, Paul. But what to do about it ? To be honest I’d never heard of this ‘Core Vote Strategy’ or ‘Pivoting Strategy’ which you set out so clearly. Comes from living 400 miles from Metropolitan London and 200 miles from my origins, similar to yours, in textile West Yorkshire. What I do see as Chair of a Food Bank is deepening poverty and a divided society between the haves and the have nots.

If what you say about the Federal Board is the case then I’m appalled at their ineptness and blinkered view of the world…… not to say a sense of obligation to the needs of society. The destination will be the dustbin of history as an irrelevance …. which is where what is left of the party will end up. Who are these people ? Please name some names and let’s hold these Metropolitan smart arxes to account.

To be honest if what you say is true, then after near on sixty years of being a foot soldier campaigner, Councillor and Parliamentary Candidate it appears I’ve been wasting my time. What I’ve noticed is a superficial glossing over of the last seven years and a lack of intellectual honesty when it comes to jollying the troops.

I’m not too sure about your lesson from post 1906 history though. My version is the catalyst was a mix of opposition to WW1, the widened franchise and the need for more education and social reform. It led to many of the best of the class of 1906 (Trevelyan, Ponsonby, Morel – even Haldane et al) to resurface wearing a different plumage. Squiff was a man of his time….. for the time up to 1914….. but then what ?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic
and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here.
Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to
show this. You must be registered for our forum and can
then login on this public site
with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.